GuildWiki has been locked down: anonymous editing and account creation are disabled. Current registered users are unaffected. Leave any comments on the Community Portal.



I know I've covered this somewhere, but is there a hard and fast rule about number range emphasis? For example, I see lots of the skill articles say "does 10..35 damage" and some say "does 10...35 damage". We should normalise this. I personally think bold is better, because that's the really pertinent information in the article. Gravewit 02:51, 8 Jul 2005 (EST)

Templates dont work for me, giving me an error: - A database query syntax error has occurred. This may indicate a bug in the software. The last attempted database query was: - (SQL query hidden) - from within function "MediaWikiBagOStuff:_doquery". MySQL returned error "1030: Got error 134 from storage engine (localhost)". Ollj

I'm getting those SQL errors about 75% of the pages I am trying to access. It's been like this for about a week. For instance, every link on the elite skills list page triggers this error. --Jackel 05:53, 27 Jul 2005 (EST)

This is being worked on. It's been discussed across several pages. 05:59, 27 Jul 2005 (EST)

Ollj skills[]

Ollj, so far your unilateral action has been about as much trouble as it has been worth. How about before you do anything else you get involved in the discussions in the Style and formatting sections? <LordBiro>/<Talk>

since i got a table with all 345 skills in it and detailed knowledge of all those i would like to bring all skills out of stub status...

BUT I also have sugggestions to change the skil template:

1) I want all the [[]] out of the value!!

That way i could use [[categorize_{{{Value}}} Skills]] for a SKILL CLASS categories and [[categorize:{{{Value}}}]] for a SKILL TYPE category inside the templates also, and they would be automaitized becausae their category is in a template like in "Template:Skill_begin" !

2) skill "effect" and "targets" in the template?

You can sort skills by their "effects". I alredy wikified a LOT of verbs in the descriptions, but it doesnt follow certain rules yet. You could categorize there also into "changes health" "changes energy" "Armor/blocks/evades" "causes condition" "interrupts" "use on foe" "use on ally" "use on party" ...

3) I already worked on formating all the 1...32 ranges to wikify them, most are done, want them into the template?

4) i want | "icon = ..." out of the proffession entry template, because it can be puzzled out of "value" with [[image:{{{value}}}-icon.png]] IF the image names are all formated that way. It just makes less to type and saves some memory!!! Skill_image has the same, i dont have to type the skill name twice if i put more in the template and less in the skill! Actually just include skill_image and skill_begin into skill_start and save 2 lines in each skill.

5) get (elite) out of the atribute entry and make it a seperate entry!

6) include relative increase and increase peaks to it :)

7) reduce "Enchantment spell" to "Enchantment" and "Hex Spell" to "Hex" and "Signet Ring" to "Signet"

so skills look basically like this:

{{Skill_begin            | name = Air Attunement | color = lightgreen | caption = }}
 {{Skill_profession_entry | value = Elementalist}}
 {{Skill_RelativeI_enrty  | value = 3,76}}
 {{Skill_peaks_enrty      | value = 3 5 10 15}}
 {{Skill_attribute_entry  | value = Air Magic}}
 {{Skill_Elite_enrty      | value = x}}
 {{Skill_type_entry       | value = Enchantment}}
 {{Skill_energy_entry     | value = 10}}
 {{Skill_activation_entry | value = 2}}
 {{Skill_recharge_entry   | value = 60}}
 {{Skill_target_enrty     | value = foe}}
 {{Skill_health_c_enrty   | value = x}}
 {{Skill_greennumber_enrty | value = 36...55}}
 {{Skill_energy_c_enrty   | value = gain}}
 {{Skill_health_c_enrty   | value = x}}
 {{Skill_defend_enrty     | value = x}}
 {{Skill_condition_enrty  | value = x}}

and ill change the template, so the result is basically the same. and we could have it automatically in the categories: "Elite" (is "category:elite skill" or not) "Target foe" (targets foe) "Health x" (chaning health with x=heal,gain,steal...) "36...55" (note that this stanxs above skill_energy... because its linked to it) "Energy gain" (changing energy with x=drain,steal,gain...) "Defense x" (with x= block,evade,armor...) "Condition x" (causing conditions with x beingthe contidion)

Of course you can keep empty entrances (with an x here) out or make them multiple times if they are in multiple times with different x.

1) No, if someone puts "?" in the entry then it would add it do "Category:?" which is undesirable. Using [[links]] inside entries makes sense because we might not want to link to a page. We should remain flexible.

2) This isn't a bad idea, I think we should formalize the terminology though.

3) I don't like the way they use templates, as I commented on one of them (can't remember which), but overall I don't mind these pages too much. I think it's better than including the information in the page. So yes, I don't mind if you link to the pages.

4) No, profession can also be "artisan" or "trader" or "skill trainer" that don't have icons. The way icons are treated in templates should remain the same, for similar points to (1).

5) Yes, this isn't a bad idea. Any suggestions? (Please don't go ahead and change anything yet!)

6) I think this should be included on the numbers pages rather than skill pages themselves. It's detailed information that is deserving of its own area, and I think this area would be best on the numbers page.

7) Yes, I agree with this.

8) (your other suggestions) I don't like all the stuff in the template. Could you create a sample skill article at User:Ollj/Sample Skill without changing existing templates to demonstrate what a page like this would look like? Any changes you do make to existing skill templates without prior discussion will be rolled back. <LordBiro>/<Talk> 22:16, 30 Jul 2005 (EST)

2) I've been thinking about something like this. It's a good idea.

3) I still see no point to the range articles instead of including a table on the skill page. I would not want to click a link to get that info instead of having it in front of me already when looking at the skill. As with everyone else, I think the work you did on this is brash and you need to slow down.

5, 7) The reason they say "enchantment spell" and such is that's what the game says. For elite status, I would say either make it "elite enchantment spell" like the game or leave it as it is ("enchantment spell (elite)"). I'm not sure what having "elite = x" accomplishes in the template.

I also reverted one of Ollj's changes to the skill template since he changed it without discussion. --Fyren 23:31, 30 Jul 2005 (EST)

Ah right, good stuff Fyren. <LordBiro>/<Talk> 00:00, 31 Jul 2005 (EST)

The reason I like seperate number-range pages is because the format is still undecided really. It's the lesser of two evils to have a seperate page with this info on. <LordBiro>/<Talk> 00:03, 31 Jul 2005 (EST)

I'd rather have no pages or no tables than a gazillion pages we end up not wanting or a gazillion tables to edit out. Of course, we already have the pages now... --Fyren 00:08, 31 Jul 2005 (EST)

if its "x" just do not insert the template line and you dont get an "x"-category.

Then you're saying just like {{skill_elite}}. --Fyren 05:21, 31 Jul 2005 (EST)
No Ollj, it's still a bad idea because it ties you in to something you might not want. It's no big hardship to add a template AND add a category, and I don't think I'm going to budge on this. <LordBiro>/<Talk> 10:08, 31 Jul 2005 (EST)

Description Wikifiing[]

No dictionary[]

(merged from user talk Ollj) There is no point to creating Guild Wars articles for words like "touch" or "foe" or "attack". If people really don't know what common english words are, there is a dictionary for that. --Jackel 03:55, 1 Aug 2005 (EST)

last time I checked this was no dictionary. attack and touch are not as clear as you might think.Ollj

You are the one trying to make this a dictionary. Touch is the only term that might need a bit of explaining in a game sense. All the other terms you have wikified dont need explaining. --Geeman 04:25, 1 Aug 2005 (EST)
tell that to all the players I killed with Empathy, spirit shackes, spinal shivers, clumsiness, inerpitude ...Ollj
There is no reason to have a an entry for touch. We should have an entry for Touch Attack, Melee Attack, Ranged Attack. Players die because of Empathy and Spirit Shackles because they never bother to learn what those little icons on the top left mean. Not because they don't understand what attack means.
Overall, please try to think in terms of a process, not just something you like or not like. As a process, if you wikify attack, you will have to wikify the whole article and explain go, come and enter. If someone doesn't understand what the word "Melee" itself means, they should consult a dictionary. We should only try to explain what a Melee attack in guild wars is and what can cause it and what can stop it and so forth. --Karlos 05:21, 1 Aug 2005 (EST)

How to wikify the descriptions[]

What to wikify?:[]

so far the following dextription segments got wikified:

exhausted weakness (most done, some still not bound to Conditions )

(note to split up "the bars" and "bar changings", i dont think the site Health regeneartion is that usefull)

Out of this huge list, the ones I think should be wiki linked are the conditions, the skill type (hex, etc.), and maybe the target type. I think the target type should also have a field in the template with choices being self, ally, other ally, enemy, and minion. I think this covers everything, since "party" spells actually only target yourself but have an effect on your party (this can be observed with divine favor, zealot's fire, and probably other stuff like that). --Fyren 04:21, 2 Aug 2005 (EST)
but skills that target "party" do not target "ally" "self" or "other ally" like Zealots fire does not get triggered by Aegis. Anyone knows it minions get targeted by skills that target "party"?. Theres a difference betwen "party" and other targets.Ollj
Here is my input:
  • They are called "articles" not "sites," you confuse other readers when you refer to them as sites.
  • COnditions are fine, except "on fire" should be Burning.
  • There should be no wiki for "damage" that's again, English. You cannot use it in a Guild Wars reference and mean something OTHER than the english meaning. But we should have a Category called Damage Types that includes a reference to all the different types.
  • I think prevention technicques should be Blocking (though I wrote Block) and Evasion. Armor is a defensive/equipment issue. It doesn't prevent an attack. Interruption is an offensive move it does not necessarily protect you as much as it annoys the begeebers out of the enemy (you even see them cuss and curse).
  • There is no armor piercing there is armor penetration, right?
oops. Ollj
  • Minion should be a category undear Bestiary and within it there should be those three creatures.

Targets, AOEs, and so on[]

[Separated out from the above section by Fyren]

  • Targets is not completely coherent. What does undead have to do with party? I think perhaps Ally should be explained in Guild Wars sense as well as Other Ally. Foe and Creature are not needed. --Karlos 08:37, 2 Aug 2005 (EST)
I think what Ollj meant by undead was minion. Whether we link them or not, does anyone disagree with "Target: whatever" being in the template? --Fyren 08:50, 2 Aug 2005 (EST)
I like that, yes. I finally understand what you mean now! :) Skill Target! Yes, I think that's a good idea. Target: Self/Ally/Other ally/Pet/Minion/Corpse/Enemy (or Foe) Also we could have Area of Effect. Target, Adjacent, Nearby and then Target AND Adjacent and Target AND Nearby. But we're inching ever so close into putting the whole description in the template! :) --Karlos 09:14, 2 Aug 2005 (EST)
Would firestorm-like areas count as nearby? Also, the well spells target only a corpse but then have a rather large area of effect for the well. Spirits have an even larger one. --Fyren 10:16, 2 Aug 2005 (EST)
dont mess up a skills "target" with a skills "range" and a skills "AoE". "Skills AoE"s are nearby adjanced touched area... For example the following skills have AoE nearby: --- Grasping Earth Ward Against Elements Aftershock Crystal Wave Lava Font Inferno Flame Burst Shatter Hex Unholy Feast Chillblains Death Nova Belly Smash "Charge!" "Watch Yourself!" "Shields Up!" Light Dwayna Putrid Explosion Dark Fury Channeling Signet of Agony Blurred Vision Ice Spikes Signet of Weariness Cry of Frustration Fevered Dreams Suffering Descerate Enchantments Heal Area Smite Hex Chain Lightning --- . Noone really knows if they all have the same radius but its obvious that touched<=adjanced<nearby<area . "Skills Range"s are like bow ranges, they are different from skill to skill and explained nowere. "Skills Target"s are ally foe party ... Ollj
I agree. Skill Target is more though than just ally, foe and party. Distinct Targets in the game are: Self, Ally, Other Ally, Party, Pet, Enemy. Self means you can only cast it on yourself like Aura of Restoration, Ally means you can ast it on yourself or someone else, like Mending. Other ally means you can't cast it on yourself but can cast it on an "ally". Party means whole party, Pet means it is cast on pet. Enemy means it must target enemy. there is no corpse (since that uses a corpse but it is actually centered around you), and I am not sure about minion.
Area of effect is who is affected by spell: Target only or someone else. So it does not include touch. Area of effects are target<adjacent<nearby<area. Offensive spells tend to affect target AND adjacent (like Fire Storm) while defensive spells (like Whirlwind) affect only adjacent.
We need to find a name for "method of activation" i.e. does this spell launch a projectile, or is it a touch spell or is it an area spell? For example Chain Lightning is a striking spell, it doe snot "miss" while "Flare" is a projectile, it could miss. Metero Shower is an area spell, if target walks away he is no longer affected, but blindness from Glimmering Mark strikes target and adjacent but is not area of effect, it will follow those aflicted around. Man! This is tough! :)--Karlos 18:18, 3 Aug 2005 (EST)

To summarize (and reset the indent), there are three things suggested:

  • Target: What the skill is used on. Choices suggested are self, ally, other ally, pet, corpse, minion, enemy, and party.
  • AoE: What the skill effects once it is cast. Choices suggested are target, adjacent, nearby, party, and corpse. We need some more for firestorm, spirits, wells, etc.
  • Method: How the skill does its thing. I suggest automatic (like inferno or lightning strike), touch, and projectile (like flare). Any others?

I'm unsure of the corpse and party targets. I think these need to be in the AoE section instead. When you cast heal party, only the caster gets the divine favor bonus. Similarly, if you have zealot's fire on and cast heal party, damage is dealt only adjacent to the caster and not adjacent to each party member. (I said this above, sorry for repeating.) For corpses, you don't actually target a corpse, it just uses one (would this make it targetless? or self?). --Fyren 04:27, 4 Aug 2005 (EST)

Does putrid trigger zealots fire on self or on the corpse or at all? This should answere the difference between target corpse and target self. Interestring that skills that taget party, acutally target self and only have an AoE Effect.Ollj

All the corpse spells BESIDES putrid target yourself. Putrid is actually special, you can target ANYONE, enemy or ally, and it uses the corpse nearest your target. The description does say this. --Fyren 16:54, 9 Aug 2005 (EST)

I have mixed feelings about putting "Target" in the template, but I'm not entirely opposed to it. If the possible entries in this box were to be small enough and well-defined I would be satisfied. My only worry is that for some skills it will be over-used. For example, will every Warrior skill contain {{Skill_target_entry | value = Foe}} or something? Not sure if I like that, but for skills like Monk skills where you are often concerned about the difference between ally and other ally I think it would be suitable. <LordBiro>/<Talk> 20:55, 9 Aug 2005 (EST)

What to wikify, part deux[]

I really think this discussion should be at GuildWiki_talk:Style and formatting/Skills, since this talk page is just for the guide.

  • Your conditions links are incorrect Ollj, each "condition" now has it's own article, e.g. bleeding is now bleeding ([[bleeding]]). Also, it seems that death penalty should be lowercase.
  • I'm not sure if I agree with wikifying 'minion', but if this is done it would be best to link to a bestiary article [[minion]] which in turn links to the three types of minion. There are (as far as I'm aware) a couple of undead minions that cannot be summoned by human skills, but I could be wrong here.
  • Since undead is a species it makes sense to link to them.
  • I do not agree with wikifying the following terms:
    • nearby
    • adjanced (this isn't even a real word! I think you mean adjacent, but I still disagree with that)
    • area
    • explode
    • foe
    • ally
    • party
  • These words should be self-explanatory, and if they are not (such as 'nearby' which seemingly differs from skill to skill) then having a seperate page to clarify this is pointless. The clarification should go in the notes of the appropriate skill article. I don't necessarily disagree with these pages existing (although I don't like it) but in some skill articles, these words stand out as being the most unnecessarily linked. <LordBiro>/<Talk> 02:00, 9 Aug 2005 (EST)
I agree with Biro. But, to note, "nearby" seems to match what Karlos wrote for nearby. I tested against Ollj's original version and found that info about ranges to be incorrect. I don't think "nearby" is inconsistent. In the GW glossary page, it says nearby means some number of inches, so I think that implies it's consistent (even if "x inches" doesn't tell us much else). --Fyren 02:49, 9 Aug 2005 (EST)
I think a better idea than to wikify "nearby" and "adjacent" is to actually place special "area of effect" instructions PER skill. i.e. For a skill like "Meteor Shower" we add a section called "Skill Range" or "Area of Effect" and then add our notes on what the range of this specific skill actually is. Same thing for "Well of Blood." In contrast, a straight forward skill like "Backfire" would not need that section. I have made an example in Chain Lightning which I have been using religiously lately. :)
We can also place these notes in the Usage Notes section of skills. --Karlos 17:12, 9 Aug 2005 (EST)
Above is the suggestion we put AoE and target into the skill box. We can specify each for every skill, so I believe it's a good idea to put it there. --Fyren 17:15, 9 Aug 2005 (EST)
Both ideas are ok with me. <LordBiro>/<Talk> 20:58, 9 Aug 2005 (EST)

Please don't break categories up[]

While you contemplate changes to the skill template, please don't split categories into two, as in "Enchantment" and "Enchantment Spell". I realize some of you don't use subcategories, but those of us with tabbed browsers do find them useful; 'the open all links on page in tabs' ability makes it easy to browse through the entries. For example, I use it to find things like all enchantments a mesmer/monk can cast.

Do you really think it's a good idea to split a category between two competing categories while we gradually migrate from one format to another? Especially when it's something like singular/plural spelling? Would it be more helpful to either 1) Do all the changes in a burst of work or 2) put new entries in both rival categories until all the 'old' entries have also been migrated to the 'new' one, then delete references to the 'old' category?

As it stands, the categories are incomplete and much less useful; there are 3 entries under [[Category: Enchantment Spells]], 46 under [[Category: Enchantment Spell]], as well as 24 under [[Category: Enchantment]]. The 70-odd enchantments are spread over 3 categories, and none of the three pages refers to the others. Likewise for Category:Hex, Category:Hex Spell, and Category:Hex Spells. Messes like this make the site look incomplete to a new user and then (once you realize there are 3 categories) shoddy. It seems from reading the discussions that the question of what to do is not settled, but perhaps I missed something;

-- Daulnay 9:51 am, PST October 24, 2005

There is no question on the decision to shift to plurals. That decision was taken in the Bestiary talk page or the Category:Bestiary talk page. Now, I frankly could care less whether it's Category:Enchantments or Enchantment Spells but I do care that it is not Enchantment. Because that is a decision that has been taken and we must enforce it if this democratic process is to have ANY meaning. This is why I asked you to stop. You were breaking the one decision we did make. Now, if you wish to resolve the greater issue of which one to use Hexes or Hex Spells, please go ahead. --Karlos 16:02, 25 October 2005 (EST)